Bitcoin will prosper — until governments or banks decide to crush it overnight

42 Comments

Credit: Guardian/Guy Grandjean, James Ball

Every currency created since the advent of money 2,700 years ago has fit nicely into one of two classifications: Either it was a representative money system, deriving its worth from a link to some physical store of value like gold, silver or gemstones; or it was fiat, deriving its value from the fact that a government or central authority guaranteed it.

Bitcoin, the world’s most successful digital currency, defies this time-tested classification system: It is neither fiat nor representative. It is not fiat, because its supply is actually finite and, more importantly, it lacks any central backing authority. (Click here for a good primer on the tech behind Bitcoin). Nor is it representative, because it is not linked to anything physical. Thus the internet has (once again) spawned a phenomenon that is inexplicable via conventional economic frameworks.

As economists study the attributes of digital money, they are discovering that Bitcoin is, in many ways, a better currency: unlike paper money, it is unforgeable; unlike gold, its supply is perfectly verifiable. It is immune to the inflation that plagues all fiat currencies: governments cannot simply print Bitcoins to pay off their debts. It is perfectly secure: all transactions are monitored collectively by the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin payments can be made at any time, to anyone, with as little as zero fees and no dependence on financial intermediaries. Bitcoin transaction histories are distributed and decentralized, making the system robust and resilient. And Bitcoin minimizes the amount of personal information that users have to disclose when transacting.

For all of these traits, Bitcoin has potent disruptive potential to the world banking system, and thus the governments that are supported by it. Which is precisely why it is doomed.

Anonymity threatens control

Though novel today, the anonymity of transactions that Bitcoin provides is actually a very old trait of money, one that most currencies actually enjoyed for most of their history. If fact, it was only recently eradicated by virtue of the digital nature of modern banking, combined with legislative initiatives in the United States (and other countries).

Governments today enjoy unprecedented power of monetary observation, which they argue has resulted in a “safer” world with less money laundering, greater impediments to criminal activity, and reduced tax evasion. Industrialized nations are just beginning to maximize the benefits of this newfound transparency and so understandably have no interest in reverting to a more opaque banking system.

Monetary control is power

But beyond monitoring money flow, there is an even more fundamental reason why substantial Bitcoin success is undesirable for governments. For any government, ceding control of money supply is tantamount to an abdication; without control of money there is no control at all. For this reason, as Bitcoin continues to gain users, government indifference must gradually give way to bemusement and ultimately resistance.

However, well before governments attempt to curtail Bitcoin, there is another antagonist that might take action more rapidly: the financial services industry. Banks and their kin make tens of billions of dollars every year from providing the very basic task service of moving money from one place to another. And as a nearly foolproof revenue stream – zero risk, almost zero cost, and billions of dollars in profits – it’s also a pillar of their business model. In fact, banking as we know it today would have a far diminished role, if any, in a Bitcoin-denominated economy. Hence, you will see little support for digital money from any bank.

Thus, if Bitcoin can continue to gain in popularity, its users can look forward to an eventual confrontation with two extremely powerful antagonists. Unfortunately for Bitcoin, both parties, governments especially, can follow a simple strategy to ensure Bitcoin, or any other aspirational digital currency, never gains widespread use.

Governments hold nuclear option

The strategy, by the way, is not prohibition. A legislative attempt to curtail Bitcoin would be hampered by political agendas, court challenges, enforcement costs and, perhaps most importantly, the complications national boundaries create. Indeed, lawmaking is utterly clumsy compared to the much cleaner, cheaper and perfectly effective solution called “currency intervention.”

All major economic powers are experienced in the techniques of manipulating the value of monies whose price they care about. To affect a currency, one need simply to buy or sell enough of it that marginal supply or demand is affected. Price change then follows naturally. (For example, China and Japan have done this in the recent past to weaken the buying power of Renmimbi and Yen respectively, to reduce the cost of their exports in Western markets.)

Interventions are usually meant to do one of two things: change the value of a currency or moderate the volatility of a currency. But currency intervention can just as easily be used to increase the volatility of a currency. And, in the case of Bitcoin, it would be utterly simple to do because the total value of all Bitcoins, currently about $1 billion, is so minuscule compared to the buying power of any industrialized country.

This would remain the case if Bitcoin’s market cap increased 100-fold or even 1000-fold. The algorithm is simple: gradually purchase large sums of Bitcoins, a  hundred million dollars worth given the current market cap would be plenty. Then flash sell them to flood the market and drive the price down. Rinse, repeat.

A currency that quintuples in a month, and then loses two-thirds of its value in the following week, is not a currency that inspires confidence in users. And while features like security, verifiability, untamperablity and decentralization are attractive, they are all secondary to the main factor that controls adoption of any currency: stability of purchasing power.

Thus Bitcoin’s Achilles heel is its susceptibility to manipulation by the very people who need Bitcoin to fail. It seems not just possible, but likely, that the potential victims of Bitcoin would exploit this vulnerability if they needed to. And, ironically, they would be able to do this totally anonymously. It is this vulnerability that the Winklevosses and others who are “going long” Bitcoin should probably take a good look at sooner rather than later.

Tammer Kamel is founder and CEO of Quandl, a searchable database of numerical data, including a collection of Bitcoin statistics. Follow him on Twitter @TEKamel.

Have an idea for a post you’d like to contribute to GigaOm? Click here for our guidelines and contact info.

42 Comments

jaime

Totally agree with the ones saying that the Bitcoin protocol is much more than a simple “currency”. It’s a technology that will change many facets of our society. It may be the support for a new type of value transfer mechanism, or the foundation for a triple entry accounting system, bringing much more transparency to our economies… who knows?

Destroying the Bitcoin economy, if ever possible, will be like destroying the TCI/IP protocol in the early 90’s because of the “risk” then associated to that uncontrolled new born economy.

Pierre Noizat

Great post! However, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is a natural commodity in this statement:
“Nor is it representative, because it is not linked to anything physical.”

Bitcoin is linked to something physical, namely numbers. Prime numbers are a commodity in unlimited supply (although the greater the prime number, the harder it is to find).
Bitcoin are a commodity in limited supply. The fact that you cannot see it (you can only see a representation of it when you write it down) does not make a number any less physical.
Just like the force of gravitation is an invisible yet very real, physical force.
Note that a gold coin value is derived form its substance (gold) AND its weight..

In short, Bitcoin is a representative money system.

AnonyMouse

Good ****ing luck on accomplishing this total smackdown of Bitcoin, unless you shut down the entire internet. (Don’t see that happening!)

Mario

Well, this is false. If governments do what this article says, I bet that lot of people is going to be buying the dips and selling the tops.

To get stability you only need to price your products and services in Bitcoins, and get providers that also price their products and services in Bitcoins, and then all the “volatility” is futile.

And if the government do what this article says, it is going to cause more interest in Bitcoin, because one can multiply their investment in a couple months, this is only going to attract more people ;) So I hope the government and banks do what this article says!

I’m pretty sure that a good amount of bitcoiners are well informed about this risk and are willing to communicate the risk to other more newbie bitcoiners so they can know about this, and use the movement as an advantage. For me, if a move like this is done, I’m going to buy a bunch of cheap Bitcoins ;)

roy

I read through the whole article just to get to the interesting bit… the whole “nuclear option” bit. I feel disappointed.

That is the stupidest possible way to attack a currency.

If I had the powers of a major western govt. at my disposal (and felt threatened by Bitcoin, which would not be the case until it was 100 times bigger than it is right now) I could think of 100 ways to attack it which are better, and cheaper, than attempting to increase volatility.

Just a dew words on a guidance note from FinCen or the CFTC could provoke wild price swings without having to spend a cent!

tammerk

I have read 24 comments on my article thus far. I want to address some common themes:

1) “The Nuclear Strategy wont work once Bitcoin gets huge”

I completely agree. Which is precisely why the strategy would be used if Bitcoin ever threatened to get big. There is absolutely a tipping point here. Very powerful entities know this and would act well before that tipping point neared.

2) “If Bitcoin is destroyed, a new Bitcoin will emerge. Or 10 will”

I agree with this too. But the second and third and fourth generation Bitcoin must have the same vulnerability: every currency must start small first. Furthermore, at some point, people will realize that digital currencies that threaten government monetary control will always be attacked. And they will eventually give up or find a better approach.

3) “Some people get rich on govt intervention; speculators love volatility.”

The fortunes won and lost by lucky and unlucky individuals couldn’t be more irrelevant in the grand scheme here. And please believe me on this: speculation on a perfectly random signal is fair, but is a zero sum game. No intelligent investor would go near Bitcoin in the interventionist regime I portend.

4) Governments and banks will prosper – until people decide to crush it overnight

No argument here!

tammerk

I have read 24 comments on my article thus far. I want to address some common themes:

1) “The Nuclear Strategy wont work once Bitcoin gets huge”

I completely agree. Which is precisely why the strategy would be used if Bitcoin ever threatened to get big. There is absolutely a tipping point here. Very powerful entities know this and would act well before that tipping point neared.

2) “If Bitcoin is destroyed, a new Bitcoin will emerge. Or 10 will”

I agree with this too. But the second and third and fourth generation Bitcoin must have the same vulnerability: every currency must start small first. Furthermore, at some point, people will realize that digital currencies that threaten government monetary control will always be attacked. And they will eventually give up or find a better approach.

3) “Some people get rich on govt intervention; speculators love volatility.”

The fortunes won and lost by lucky and unlucky individuals couldn’t be more irrelevant in the grand scheme here. And please believe me on this: speculation on a perfectly random signal is fair, but is a zero sum game. No intelligent investor would go near Bitcoin in the interventionist regime I portend.

4) Goverments and banks will prosper – until people decide to crush it overnight

No argument here!

3n1gm4

Goverments and banks will prosper – until people decide to crush it overnight …

Robert

Ok! kindly allow me to induce an entirely different perspective on what I think could be going on with Bitcoin. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I’ve simply had time to think logically and consider certain scenarios following my research, so here goes my hypothesis:

What if Government created Bitcoin themselves in disguise of a fictional character called Satoshi? Has anyone paused to think about this carefully?

Why would government quietly do this? In my extrapolation, very simply because they themselves know the ultimate fate of fiat currency is doomed!! Doesn’t matter whether total financial collapse comes today or in 10 years time. Take note George Soros believes the financial system post aftermath of 2007 can not be fixed! Those were his comment period. George Soros is a credible “INSIDER” of how the global financial system. Imagine if Bernanke said that, but he can never ever tell you that even if he knew it or believed it!

I ask readers here to go and research Bernard Leitnar’s “Future of Money” Bernard helped design the Euro currency in the 1990’s. His book written about 10years ago forecasted something like Bitcoin in the post aftermath of a financial collapse. I believe that financial collapse was the credit crunch. We’ve simply managed it, not fixed it, therefore we are living in denial.

I suspect the architects of government and their advisors, such as the Rand Corp, are fully aware fiat is no longer a sustainable economic financial system, so instead of being in denial, simply create a new global digital currency, but do it steadily so it can evolve gradually until everyone comes along. They would have extrapolated that banks are also doomed, but who cares anyway, as technology obsoletes banking eventually. We may all be witnessing the first phase towards an egalitarian financial system in our lifetime. This explains why big venture capital companies are now investing in Bitcoin startups and my hypothesis explains why Satoshi or whatever his name is cannot be found, because he simply does not exist! A fictional character to simply allow the 10 to 15 years of global transition from fiat currency to the first global digital currency that no one can control.

By the way, Bernard Leitnar also suggests your future government maybe Google, Microsoft or Apple etc, as people no longer vote for political parties anymore in the new virtual crypto currency world. It simply becomes a natural gravitation and evolution as the next step for human kind, just like the INTERNET!!

So what this article suggests will be attempted down the value chain, but will not succeed, because the elite of global government, banking and business designed the future of money themselves… very clever indeed! The rest is noise.

Look out for my Bitcoin startup at some point soon if I can do… BitPayme.com i’m throwing my lot in lol!

painlord2k

If the government do a “pump and dump” to destabilize the bitcoin system, apart attracting more people in bitcoin, they will make people cashing in and out richer.
They sell before the peak, when price is clearly overvalued, and buy back as it crash down.
in the process they will gain a load of fiat and regain their BTC at an higher prices level.

Anyway, the government should do it covertly. If they are detected, a lot of people with a lot of cash, will play against them, as is the rational things to do (like G&S betting against Greece after helping them to hide the debts).

And if the BTC price level rise too much, it become virtually impossible to manipulate, because it would cost too much and the market would go against the government.

The goverbnment could outsmart the market one time, maybe two, then the market will outsmart it forever.

ofer

When the value of all the Bitcoins will be in many trillions instead of 1 billion, it will be impossible to manipulate it in the numbers you mentioned…
A lot of people believe that this is the case.
Its all about scale.
Buy now before it is too late.
The traditional banks already lost the battle (remember Cyprus?)
So yes, Bitcoin is the near future of the world economy.

GetALife

You (the author) are not the first and you will not be the last to underestimate the power of Bitcoin. You got everything right except your conclusion that the governments can control this genie. They can disrupt it, but they will not kill it and eventually we won’t give a rats ass what the dollar/bitcoin exchange rate is because we won’t need their paper trash anymore. It will be practically worthless anyway due to the inevitable scourge of inflation.

Oh and one more thing… if prices actually went down instead of going up all the time that would really suck? Right. And if our savings actually increased in value that would also really suck?

You drank a little too much of their Koolaid bro.

Carl Mullan

WebMoney Transfer is the world’s most successful digital currency online since 1998.
Carl Mullan

Carl Mullan

WebMoney Transfer is the world’s most successful digital currency, not Bitcoin! Ha.
Carl

peter

The author indeed fails to see that one of the main strengths of Bitcoin lies primarily in it’s use as a global transaction system. Using it as a store of value will be something that may or may not be feasible in the long run. But if enough ordinary people start holding Bitcoin balances and Bitcoin becomes interwoven with normal economy to a large extend and on an international scale it might get to the point of no return, meaning that crashing Bitcoin using massive fiat powered pump and dump tactics would at that point also crash the world economy. And this would have to be coordinated on a global scale. Meaning the Chinese (who will do whatever it takes to undermine the dollar’s position as a reserve currency) to work together with the US to kill Bitcoin.

John Ratcliff

By the way, I should add, I don’t see how your plan makes sense. The government can squash bitcoin easily enough just by making it illegal for businesses to use it. Simple as that. Banks reject it, businesses reject it, and people caught using it are in trouble as well.

Look, in the United States of America, if I drop a single seed into your backyard you can (and quite likely will be) sent to prison for seven years for intent to distribute illegal drugs. Simply grow one large weed in your back-yard and you are considered a serious criminal in the US.

Now, try refusing to pay your taxes and see where that gets you, ask Wesley Snipes.

Your scenario doesn’t make sense. If some government flooded bitcoin with a 100 billion dollars, it would just make a bunch of tech-nerds super, super, rich.

It’s not really that complicated. All they have to do is say using cryptocurrencies is tantamount to being a drug-dealer, child pornographer, or terrorist.

It’s not that far from that already anyway.

I agree that they will probably shut it down, but not by making a bunch of technerds rich by buying it up. They will just make it illegal, simple as that.

It will still exist, but only as a black-market underground activity which won’t make it particularly useful or valuable or revolutionary at that point.

John

JoeSixPack

The very same hypothetical volatility which would make Bitcoin a poor choice as a currency would make it an attractive speculation.

A lot of people _want_ to gamble in such an unpredictable boom/bust/boom market.

And what if someone had inside knowledge of the moves the big banks were making before they made them?

Bitcoin might well flourish in such a manipulated environment.

Gino Pinuto

Citation: “A currency that quintuples in a month, and then loses two-thirds of its value in the following week, is not a currency that inspires confidence in users. And while features like security, verifiability, untamperablity and decentralization are attractive, they are all secondary to the main factor that controls adoption of any currency: stability of purchasing power.

Thus Bitcoin’s Achilles heel is its susceptibility to manipulation by the very people who need Bitcoin to fail.”

My opinion: I don’t think that Governments and Central Banks will give the opportunity to speculators to became rich over their shoulders…

Salim Cherif

Look up Day trader and arbitrage. Some life forms derive their income from volatility. And if govt is persueing an obvious pattern…EZ money!

Schalk

Governments might hold control over the button but they have no control of the winds and where the fallout will land.

If a government today decides take some change and pump it into bitcoin, it will hike up the price immensely, but as an unintended consequence attract more attention to bitcoin. This will cause more buying than they intended. They can then cash out and do their evil laugh thing, but the price will settle higher than it started and leave many new entrants still in the system.

Besides actually getting more people in bitcoin, they will also not be able to affect the use of bitcoin as a temporary medium of exchange for black market activities. Even during the spike, online gamblers will still use bitcoin because they have no other options. Online sellers of illicit goods will still use bitcoin during and after the spike, because they have no other options. Ironically government prohibition of activities lead to the guaranteed future of bitcoin or something like it.

John Ratcliff

I agree, I’ve been saying that ‘they’ are going to shut it down for a while; once ‘they’ realize just how big of a threat it is. Forget about even the banks, bitcoin puts Western Union out of business almost out of the gate; like within a year this could happen.

Bitcoin is very complicated because it can be thought of as a currency, a commodity, and a transaction system all at the same time!

However, it’s most immediate disruptive power is as a transaction system. There are more and more businesses creating a model where they don’t even care about the value of bitcoin as a currency, they are just using it is a transaction system to wirelessly transfer money anywhere around the world instantaneously.

As long as the value of the money is stable enough for the duration of the transfer (a few minutes??) it seems to work.

I agree, that banks and wire-transfer services are the most immediately threatened by the power of cryptocurrency.

But, it’s kind of hard to put that genie back in the bottle.

So, they knock bitcoin down? Big deal, then twenty other cryptocurrencies pop right up again in its place.

I think it’s easiest, and most likely, that it gets regulated out of existence or demonized and propagandized in the US.

The weak point is where fiat goes in and fiat comes back out again. The real threat is when nobody even wants fiat at all any more. For that to happen, it really does need to become a universally accepted form of payment; as common as Mastercard and Visa who, by the way, cyrptocurrency would put out of business too.

We are already hearing a number of anecdotal reports of people having their checking accounts closed because they are doing bitcoin transfers.

It’s going to be an interesting ride for sure…

Auric Ragnar

My savings being worth less each year. Inflation is desirable? Keynesianism has surely poisoned many an otherwise sound mind.

alexmedawayhasleftthebuilding

inflation is desirable and important. it’s good for you that you have your savings, but it’s bad for the economy at large if money holds or increases in value, because then everybody starts saving all their money and nobody buys much of anything and, guess what, businesses go to hell. that’s why a dollar today buys less than a dollar in the 70s, that’s how it’s all designed

Mario

You must buy food, you must buy clothes, once your money has more value, is more probable that you are willing to buy expensive things like smartphones, and other gadgets…. It is false that when money increases its value people stop spending….

Dmitry

“deflationary spirals do not exist” – um… True? Once you give someone the unrestricted ability to print money for themselves, there’s little hope they wouldn’t do that.

Even if they did exist, that would simply mean that people do not need to buy more stuff. Which is perfectly fine, and good for environment.

Rob Mitchell

I enjoyed your perspective, and felt it was well-informed. However, I think focusing on Bitcoin as a currency and/or asset, ignores that it is a backbone technology in it’s infancy. We still have no idea what developers (many funded by an active VC pool) will build upon this impressive, secure, distributed ledger system. It’s not at all hard to imagine that the Bitcoin platform will be built upon in useful ways that are specifically independent of the actual price of a Bitcoin. The technology itself is simply not reliant on Bitcoin having high or even stable exchange rates, so I don’t at all think you can be confident that government (or other) price manipulation will be able to crush Bitcoin.

Simon Edhouse

yes, good answer… seeing bitcoin through the lens of a pure monetary system, is to not see the BTC protocol clearly.

Martin Bergstrom

I agree wholeheartedly. My issue is only with those that trumpet it as a currency to cure the ills of current, government-backed currencies. From a currency based perspective, Bitcoin is sorely lacking (of the 3 uses of currency -a medium of exchange, a unit of account, and a store of value- Bitcoin is currently useful*ish as a store of value). From a technological perspective, it is a far more interesting and ambitious project.

Martin Bergstrom

“It is immune to the inflation that plagues all fiat currencies: governments cannot simply print Bitcoins to pay off their debts.”

Governments generally pursue low levels of inflation to maintain economic stability (pegged prices are subject to market volatility and currency runs while deflation is far more destructive and difficult to reign in than low inflation; see Japan) , with only rare and isolated incidences of high inflation being used to erase debt burdens (as the costs of such inflation are generally much higher than its benefits). Even assuming that the fed is completely controlled by either the commercial banking sector, free from any political or popular pressure or controlled by political considerations (in reality, it is subject to banking interest control but somewhat responsive to outside pressure), it is within the best interest of both the large banks, and political bodies and institutions to maintain a stable, balanced monetary system that inspires market confidence.

Inflation is not some insidious plague inherent in fiat currencies, it is a desirable good that helps maintain price stability and market confidence against the threats of outside shocks or the animal spirits of the free marketplace. Has inflation been misused in the past? Yes, but those incidences are rare exceptions in isolated markets; hardly a reason to write off inflation as an inevitable ill of fiat currencies that should be feared and protected against. Bitcoin is an interesting project, and I do not mean to write it off, but trumpeting it as a cure an imagined ill is at best misguided, and at worst, dishonest.

Amin

The history of paper currency has been rife with hyper-inflation. It happens on a long time scale, so it doesn’t seem like it’s a common occurrence, but given the devastation caused by severe inflation, it’s frequent enough to be a major problem.

“Inflation is not some insidious plague inherent in fiat currencies, it is a desirable good that helps maintain price stability and market confidence against the threats of outside shocks or the animal spirits of the free marketplace. ”

World class investment teams with better tools than the Federal Reserve control most global capital flows, not mom and pop investors subject to animal spirits.

Central bank intervention increases the information disparity between mom and pops and the elite, because the elite will undoubtedly always be able to get advance knowledge of central bank decisions.

Martin Bergstrom

I was responding to the claim that governments use inflation to inflate debt away, which is rare and often counter-productive (unstable monetary policy will raise credit risks and thus credit costs, causing greater debt problems than such inflation would solve). Moreover, believing that world class investment teams are not subject to animal spirits is ridiculous and completely unsupported by the historical record. It is not even a question over knowledge or rationality, it is a question of simple incentives. During a banking run, it makes perfect, rational sense for individuals (or individual investment entities) to pull their savings from the bank. You are right in the fact that private capital controls the vast majority of international capital flows (above both mom & pop investors, and central banks), and yet we see still see the wide fluctuations associated with the animal spirits. It is not that this private capital is being overridden, but that it too is prone to animal spirits. If low-level inflation were not present, future values and actions would be even less predictable. Who do you think would benefit in that situation, the mom & pop investors, or the large investment groups that have experts monitoring markets full-time? Stability and predictability (even at the cost of some loss of purchasing power) benefit the small time, everyday market participants far more than any large capital structures and entities; the big dogs would thrive in a world of chaos.

Chris

Nonsense. Inflation is THEFT by banks and government of the purchasing power of money. It is theft of the most insidious nature for at least two reasons: (1) from whom the theft is mainly perpetrated upon = the elderly, the infirm, the poor, and the uneducated and (2) by the method by which it is conducted = propaganda created by the State and propagated by the complicit main stream media to convince the foolish that it is good for all if a few (banks and government) impoverish the many to deliver unearned wealth to the few (banks and government). If you are simply ignorant, please read “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt and “What Has Government Done to our Money” by Murray Rothbard. If you are a troll who already understands the horrors of inflation and are simply doing the banks’ / governments’ job of spreading this propaganda, then GET LOST!

Martin Bergstrom

And the possibility that I’m neither ignorant nor a troll is simply unimaginable; I suppose I’d lean towards ignorant as economics is a relatively new field that asks impossibly large questions that are difficult to study in isolation. As with all things though, inflation comes with a cost and a benefit. The cost is that which you highlighted; the depreciation of the value of current monetary assets over time. The benefit is long term stability that promotes economic growth. Policy makers have decided that the cost of inflation (which is relatively low and can be mitigated) far outweighs the dangers of an unstable monetary system subject to fluctuation and instability.

Mario Medina

If you see The Simpson, when the movie of Itchy&Scratchy is playing, you can see at the end of the movie the “benefits” of inflation.. “One senior citizen and one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court… The tickets cost $650.”.

On the long run, inflation is always hyperinflation. Do your calculations (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), if you saved 1000 USD 50 years ago, they is going to be equivalent to only 134 USD today. If you “like” that type of devaluation, then good for you!

Martin Bergstrom

If you like keeping your money in a sock under your bed, that is quite the unfortunate situation. If instead, you place it in a savings account, treasury bonds, or S&P 500 equity, you are actually doing quite well for yourself. Interest rates adjust according to both risk, and current/expected inflation rates.

Mario

Reblogueó esto en La mutación Neomuray comentado:
Es una lástima que los intereses de los grandes capitales se metan con Bitcoin. Es un buen proyecto, la posibilidad de una moneda virtual que brindaría acceso a muchos que no pueden entrar al mercado de otro modo. Habrá que ver si las nuevas tecnologías y la posibilidad de mancomunar esfuerzos a través de las redes sociales permite el crecimiento de este tipo de caminos económicos alternativos.

Mario Héctor Rovetto

Es una lástima que los intereses de los grandes capitales se metan con Bitcoin. Es un buen proyecto, la posibilidad de una moneda virtual que brindaría acceso a muchos que no pueden entrar al mercado de otro modo. Habrá que ver si las nuevas tecnologías y la posibilidad de mancomunar esfuerzos a través de las redes sociales permite el crecimiento de este tipo de caminos económicos alternativos. Muy buen blog, un saludo !

Comments are closed.